Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[BryonD]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You say you are disagreeing, but I don't follow what you said in disagreement... It sounds something like, "Because you can stay in the bounds of the rules in a rules-heavy system more often (since they cover more) then you arn't being as freeform as in a rules-lite system. This is because less rules are defined in the rules-lite so you have to break out of the box more." But, what I don't understand is that if you end up doing the same thing, to me that seems irrelevant.

I don't understand how you translated my quote into yours.

But all I was saying is that cops and robbers requires frequent unruled judgements and rules lite requires frequent unrules judgements. Rules heavy games require these judgements less frequently.

Therefore rule light is MORE like cops and robbers than rules heavy is, in a way that has nothing to do with opinion or preference. Thus saying rule lite is like cops and robbers is not necessarily a "you game sucks" comment.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Fair enough. But I consider rule light to be comparable to cops and robbers (the point you were referencing) without that implying any direct quality judgement.
Saying rules light = cops and robbers is not, to me, at all the same as saying rules lite is bad.

Agreed. I wasn't making a quality judgement, simply observing that proponents of one side or the other assert, or at least strongly imply, that something has to be inherently better because they like it. I like rules-heavy. I don't care how much someone tries to prove that it is inferior to rules-light (or vice-versa), I'm still gonna like it better. Some like rules-light. That's great. Trying to browbeat me into liking rules-light more just ain't gonna work, though, no matter how much "evidence" is presented that somehow "proves" it is better. The same goes for the reverse; I'm not gonna sit and proselytize about how my favorite way of playing is superior - I do vigorously argue that both ways of playing are equal, in that people have fun at playing both.

 

[BryonD]

Agreed. I wasn't making a quality judgement, simply observing that proponents of one side or the other assert, or at least strongly imply, that something has to be inherently better because they like it. I like rules-heavy. I don't care how much someone tries to prove that it is inferior to rules-light (or vice-versa), I'm still gonna like it better. Some like rules-light. That's great. Trying to browbeat me into liking rules-light more just ain't gonna work, though, no matter how much "evidence" is presented that somehow "proves" it is better. The same goes for the reverse; I'm not gonna sit and proselytize about how my favorite way of playing is superior - I do vigorously argue that both ways of playing are equal, in that people have fun at playing both.

Agreed.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't understand how you translated my quote into yours.

But all I was saying is that cops and robbers requires frequent unruled judgements and rules lite requires frequent unrules judgements. Rules heavy games require these judgements less frequently.

Therefore rule light is MORE like cops and robbers than rules heavy is, in a way that has nothing to do with opinion or preference. Thus saying rule lite is like cops and robbers is not necessarily a "you game sucks" comment.

Gotcha, arbitraryness of a system isn't subjective.

 

[Mythmere1]

To be fair, C&C and SW are more rules medium games.

It doesn't make the statement any less perplexing.

Tom

True - I only meant relative to 3e that C&C is rules lite. Even at rules-medium, it confounds the assertion that's being made ...

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Just to add a couple cents in here:

As a player, rules-heavy or rules-light, it doesn't matter: I'm still going to whup some ass or die trying (my V:tM character excepted. He's just weird).

As a GM...still didn't make any difference, it just mattered in the time I cared to put into making a mid-level badguy in one system vs. 3.5. The real problem came when my creativity well hits dry spots or I just get distracted by other things...taking the time to come up with the appropriate feats, skill points, etc felt too onerous, so I ended up by defaulting and making some villains rather "rules-light" anyways. Didn't matter, nobody cottoned on anyways.

Rules-heavy systems do not protect any more from DM fiat than have rules-light systems prevented munchkinism in my experience. Any time I've gamed with a bad DM with any kind of a rules-system, and I try to call them out on some rule that they were flagrantly using to screw us with, the DM would still pull "RULE ZERO, DUR-HUR-HUR-HUR!!!" So much for Protection from DM Fiat. I eventually learned to cast Protection from DM Fiat 10' Radius and I was ok.

 

[Akrasia]

A gap maybe, but not a hole.

Thing is Buffy isn't 256pp of rules. It's rules, setting info, season 1-5 synopsis, writeups of the major characters, sample archetypes, GM advice, complete sample adventure, guide to Buffyspeak, creatures and villains, conversion notes for Witchcraft, reference sheets, some fiction, and lots of art. C&C is all rules (or far more rules in comparison). Buffy may not be RISUS, but it sure sits a lot closer to it than C&C.
...

IME C&C is just as 'light' as Buffy (I play and like both games).

The C&C PHB is 128 pages -- 60+ of which are merely spell descriptions. Another 20+ is fluff text. The M&T is just filled with ... monsters and treasures.

The actual *rules* of C&C take up only 20-30 pages. It might not be a bona fide 'rules light' system -- but it is just as light as BtVS IMO.

 

[Psion]

That just shows a lack of out-of-the-box thinking on the part of your players.

Folks, is slamming people you don't even know really necessary?

 

[Akrasia]

...

The question becomes, which game is worth the time it takes to study and learn? They both take some amount of time. The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game. ...

Huh. :\

This claim demonstrates a *failure* to understand the whole point behind 'rule light' systems IMO -- viz. a good 'rules light' system does not require 'tools' (i.e. additional rules) in order to introduce novel and interesting new situations/encounters in the game.

Case in point: Buffy RPG is much 'lighter' than d20 Modern (I will leave aside the tiresome question of whether Buffy is a bona fide 'rules light' game), yet IME can accommodate as many situations and plots as d20 Modern (if not more). It can do this with far less 'crunch'/rules.

 

[Akrasia]

...

How about Tunnels & Trolls? (1975 - "early 80s")
...

Actually, I don't think T&T ever really went out of print.

I *know* a new version is about to be released.

So, yeah, T&T is a good counter-example.